Vittorio Sgarbi, the flamboyant art critic and former Undersecretary of Culture, has dismissed a legal investigation into the illicit export of a painting to Monte Carlo as the work of “pathetic” individuals. The case centers on a work attributed to Valentin de Boulogne, a prominent French follower of Caravaggio, which investigators believe may be a lost original worth millions of euros.
The painting, titled Concerto con bevitore (Concert with a Drinker), has become the focal point of a complex dispute involving scientific analysis, luxury art trade and allegations of customs evasion. While the prosecutor’s office in Imperia suggests the work was smuggled into the Principality of Monaco in 2020, Sgarbi maintains the piece is merely a copy and that the legal pursuit of him is a form of personal persecution.
At the heart of the controversy is a stark valuation gap. If the work is indeed an authentic de Boulogne, its estimated market value could reach €5.5 million. However, Sgarbi claims the painting was purchased by a friend for only €10,000, a figure far below the threshold that typically triggers strict Italian cultural heritage export restrictions.
The Monaco Connection and Allegations of Smuggling
The investigation, which has since been closed but remains a point of significant public and legal contention, alleges that the painting was illegally moved from Italy to Monaco in 2020. According to the prosecutor’s office in Imperia, Sgarbi is considered the true owner of the piece, a claim supported by various wiretaps obtained during the inquiry.
The probe also implicated Sabrina Colle, Sgarbi’s partner, and entrepreneur Gianni Filippini. Evidence cited by investigators includes WhatsApp messages in which Colle expressed a desperate need to sell the artwork, stating, “We hope to sell the painting, otherwise we are ruined.” This suggests a financial motivation for the export that contradicts Sgarbi’s portrayal of the work as a low-value copy.
Under Italian law, the illicit export of cultural property occurs when a work of significant historical or artistic interest is moved abroad without the necessary permits. Sgarbi has countered this by arguing that the painting’s value did not exceed €13,500 at the time of transport, which he claims exempts the transaction from certain export penalties.
Scientific Evidence vs. Connoisseurship
A critical point of friction in the case is the reliance on technical analysis over traditional art expertise. The Istituto Centrale per il Restauro (ICR), Italy’s premier restoration body, provided a technical report including an X-ray of the canvas. The radiography suggests the work dates back to the 17th century, lending weight to the theory that it is an original lost work by de Boulogne.
Sgarbi, however, has mocked the reliance on X-rays to determine authenticity. He argues that a 17th-century canvas does not guarantee a 17th-century painting, noting that artists frequently reused old canvases to save money.
«Embè? Questi individui che mi perseguitano sono patetici. Cosa credono di dimostrare? Che la tela sia del Seicento non vuole dire che lo sia anche il quadro. Sa quante opere sono state dipinte su tele riciclate?»
Translated, Sgarbi asked what the investigators hoped to prove, arguing that the age of the canvas is irrelevant to the authenticity of the image. He compared the situation to using X-rays on a Lucio Fontana work, asserting that technical scans cannot replace the nuanced eye of an art expert.
Comparing the Conflicting Narratives
| Aspect | Prosecution/ICR Position | Vittorio Sgarbi’s Position |
|---|---|---|
| Authenticity | Likely 17th-century original | Modern copy on old canvas |
| Estimated Value | Up to €5.5 million | Purchased for €10,000 |
| Export Status | Illicitly moved to Monaco | Legal due to low valuation |
| Evidence | X-rays and wiretaps | Lack of official expertise |
The Dispute Over Professional Expertise
Beyond the authenticity of the painting, Sgarbi is fighting claims that he provided a formal expertise (perizia) that facilitated the export. He denies ever officially certifying the work, claiming that the document cited by investigators was merely a technical sheet sent by his office staff rather than a professional appraisal signed by him.
To further support his claim that the work is a copy, Sgarbi pointed to a similar painting recently sold at a Wannenes auction for just €3,500. He insists that the Concerto con bevitore is of similar quality and that the painting in question was never actually sold, rendering the accusations of financial gain moot.
This case highlights a recurring tension in the Italian art world: the struggle between “connoisseurship”—the intuitive expertise of critics like Sgarbi—and the “scientific turn,” where laboratories and X-rays are used to settle disputes of attribution. For Sgarbi, who is currently a candidate for the European Parliament with the Fratelli d’Italia (FdI) party, the investigation is less about art and more about a targeted campaign by “torturers” intended to damage his reputation.
The legal trajectory of the case now depends on whether the closed investigation leads to further filings or if the evidence provided by the ICR will be challenged in a higher court. As it stands, the painting remains a symbol of the precarious line between a priceless masterpiece and a sophisticated imitation.
This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice regarding cultural heritage laws or art valuation.
We invite our readers to share their thoughts on the intersection of science and art expertise in the comments below.
Keep reading
